Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 9:43 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
What are your thoughts on the dismissal of charges against the terrorist responsible for the attack on the USS Cole?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/05/sources-charges-dropped-uss-cole-bombing-suspect/


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:16 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:46 am
Posts: 3655
Location: Economy, PA
Sounds like a technicality to comply with Obama's mandate to end all legal proceedings at that facility so it can be closed. I assume he will be tried again in another forum.

Got to wonder though, why hasn't this case already been tried? That bombing was 9 years ago. Or did we just recently catch him?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 517
Location: Brighton & Hove, UK
Are we not to assume that, because the charges have been dropped, he was innocent?

_________________
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - William Shakespeare


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Bertie wrote:
Are we not to assume that, because the charges have been dropped, he was innocent?

Not necessarily. It is more probable that either the gov't did not think they had enough evidence to prosecute, or the venue was improper. Given this administration's stance on the constitutionality of the military tribunals that were to hear these cases, my guess is the latter.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
From what I understand, this guy was already convicted and was heading to sentencing.

Furthermore, there are no rules in either the Army SOP or Geneva convention describing the rights of terrorists. I believe if you as a world citizen choose to lead a life as a terrorist, killing innocent civilians, then you sacrifice any rights you might have in any court.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Piratefan13 wrote:
From what I understand, this guy was already convicted and was heading to sentencing.

Furthermore, there are no rules in either the Army SOP or Geneva convention describing the rights of terrorists. I believe if you as a world citizen choose to lead a life as a terrorist, killing innocent civilians, then you sacrifice any rights you might have in any court.

That may be your belief, but that's not the law. There is no legal classification of "terrorist" that determines what type of trial such a person is to receive, so using that as a foundation for your argument carries no legal weight. If these guys are considered war criminals, then they should be tried in a military tribunal that follows the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions. See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. If not, then they should be tried under the laws of the United States. These ad hoc military commissions do neither, and that's what makes them illegal. It's just another example of President Bush trying to unduly expand his powers in defiance of United States law and the Constitution.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Willton wrote:
Piratefan13 wrote:
From what I understand, this guy was already convicted and was heading to sentencing.

Furthermore, there are no rules in either the Army SOP or Geneva convention describing the rights of terrorists. I believe if you as a world citizen choose to lead a life as a terrorist, killing innocent civilians, then you sacrifice any rights you might have in any court.

That may be your belief, but that's not the law. There is no legal classification of "terrorist" that determines what type of trial such a person is to receive, so using that as a foundation for your argument carries no legal weight. If these guys are considered war criminals, then they should be tried in a military tribunal that follows the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions. See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. If not, then they should be tried under the laws of the United States. These ad hoc military commissions do neither, and that's what makes them illegal. It's just another example of President Bush trying to unduly expand his powers in defiance of United States law and the Constitution.


I get the fact that you are a lawyer in training, I also get that you lean to the left, but what I don't get is the somewhat unnerving love affair you and many others have for the rights of known terrorists who, (again) attack defenseless civilians. Lets put aside the fact that I have personal feelings concerning the Cole because one of the murdered was an aquaintance of mine from the military, and focus on the inability for the world to classify whether these attacks are classified as war crimes or just basic crimes against society. Attacking the WTC in NY was probably the most cowardly action I have seen in my short 37 year life (too little to get the full effect of the Munich games). And to make sure you are up-to-speed wth what I consider cowardly, my definition of a coward is one who cannot face up to an equal, but preys upon one that is weaker instead to try and prove a point. These terrorists killed men, women, and children who did not have anything to do with the US military. I think there should have been public hangings resurrected for this instance.

Let me put into perspective what you are actually doing by announcing to the world that you are going to give "fair" trials and take away the leverage of the torture concept. You are encouraging these terrorists to ramp up their efforts because they will have effective American lawyers to help them out of their troubles and a President who unwisely "apologizes" to the Muslim nations of the world for our actions. Here, let me turn around so that you can paint the target in bright orange on my back. Get off your high pedestal and realize that keeping a superpower nation like the US safe requires some dirty work. The problem with you lefty folks is that you don't have the stomach for it. Come back and talk to me when someone you know gets caught in a terror bomb.

So toss out all the lawyer jargon that you like, your training and your beliefs are useless to me. I don't care one bit about their rights because if I was caught by them outside this country, they certainly wouldn't care about mine. We are caught in a war that has been raging for thousands of years, sometimes, you've got to just choose a side. I chose mine.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Piratefan13 wrote:
Willton wrote:
Piratefan13 wrote:
From what I understand, this guy was already convicted and was heading to sentencing.

Furthermore, there are no rules in either the Army SOP or Geneva convention describing the rights of terrorists. I believe if you as a world citizen choose to lead a life as a terrorist, killing innocent civilians, then you sacrifice any rights you might have in any court.

That may be your belief, but that's not the law. There is no legal classification of "terrorist" that determines what type of trial such a person is to receive, so using that as a foundation for your argument carries no legal weight. If these guys are considered war criminals, then they should be tried in a military tribunal that follows the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions. See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. If not, then they should be tried under the laws of the United States. These ad hoc military commissions do neither, and that's what makes them illegal. It's just another example of President Bush trying to unduly expand his powers in defiance of United States law and the Constitution.


I get the fact that you are a lawyer in training, I also get that you lean to the left, but what I don't get is the somewhat unnerving love affair you and many others have for the rights of known terrorists who, (again) attack defenseless civilians. Lets put aside the fact that I have personal feelings concerning the Cole because one of the murdered was an aquaintance of mine from the military, and focus on the inability for the world to classify whether these attacks are classified as war crimes or just basic crimes against society. Attacking the WTC in NY was probably the most cowardly action I have seen in my short 37 year life (too little to get the full effect of the Munich games). And to make sure you are up-to-speed wth what I consider cowardly, my definition of a coward is one who cannot face up to an equal, but preys upon one that is weaker instead to try and prove a point. These terrorists killed men, women, and children who did not have anything to do with the US military. I think there should have been public hangings resurrected for this instance.

Let me put into perspective what you are actually doing by announcing to the world that you are going to give "fair" trials and take away the leverage of the torture concept. You are encouraging these terrorists to ramp up their efforts because they will have effective American lawyers to help them out of their troubles and a President who unwisely "apologizes" to the Muslim nations of the world for our actions. Here, let me turn around so that you can paint the target in bright orange on my back. Get off your high pedestal and realize that keeping a superpower nation like the US safe requires some dirty work. The problem with you lefty folks is that you don't have the stomach for it. Come back and talk to me when someone you know gets caught in a terror bomb.

So toss out all the lawyer jargon that you like, your training and your beliefs are useless to me. I don't care one bit about their rights because if I was caught by them outside this country, they certainly wouldn't care about mine. We are caught in a war that has been raging for thousands of years, sometimes, you've got to just choose a side. I chose mine.

In case you don't know, I live across the river from where the World Trade Center once stood. I see that hole in the New York skyline every day I walk to the subway on my way to school. I see the construction at Ground Zero every time I travel into Manhattan. I had fraternity brothers in the building next door to the WTC when the first tower was hit, and it is only by the grace of God that they are living safely today. My family nearly lost dear friends who worked in the WTC if they had not escaped the area in time. You may disagree with me on how things should be done, but DO NOT tell me that I don't know what it's like to suffer from a terrorist attack. I have people from New York telling me at every turn; I don't need the sanctimonious crap from someone who wasn't there.

I hold no good will towards the people that would do our country harm. But if we start breaking the laws of our own nation, which include those contained in international treaties, in order to punish suspected terrorists as you see fit, then we become as bad as our enemies are. The more dirty work we do, the more unclean our hands become, and the more we become like the terrorists we claim to hate. We must have due process in order to legitimize our actions against these suspected terrorists, if for no other reason than to prove that they actually did what we claim they did. In order to claim moral superiority, we have to take the moral high road.

There's a very simple solution for anyone suspected terrorist captured and held in the United States: charge him with a crime or let him go. Holding a person indefinitely on the mere whim of the Executive is an abuse of executive power, the kind of power we fought a war against in the 18th Century. Just because these people may have committed heinous acts does not mean that we should torch the Constitution of the United States as a response.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Show me where terrorism fits into international treaties. Cite me the subject, paragraph and line.

Show me where these factions have afforded any US detainees liberties under the Geneva convention.

"Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac." George Orwell

"We must make it clear to any country that is tempted to use violence to undermine democratic governments, destabilize our friends, thwart efforts to promote democratic governments, or disrupt our lives that it has nothing to gain, and much to lose." Ronald Reagan

I can use quotes too.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Piratefan13 wrote:
Show me where terrorism fits into international treaties. Cite me the subject, paragraph and line.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Quoting Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2006):
Quote:
Article 3, often referred to as Common Article 3 because, like Article 2, it appears in all four Geneva Conventions, provides that in a “conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,” certain provisions protecting “[p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by . . . detention.” Id., at 3318. One such provision prohibits “the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” Ibid.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

Quote:
Show me where these factions have afforded any US detainees liberties under the Geneva convention.

Why should that have any bearing on how we conduct ourselves? Must we stoop to their level?

Piratefan13 wrote:
"Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac." George Orwell

"We must make it clear to any country that is tempted to use violence to undermine democratic governments, destabilize our friends, thwart efforts to promote democratic governments, or disrupt our lives that it has nothing to gain, and much to lose." Ronald Reagan

I can use quotes too.

That's great. Unfortunately they speak of war, which Congress has not declared, and President Bush refused to classify these people as war criminals. So whatever value you derive from those quotes do not apply to this situation.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Quote:
Why should that have any bearing on how we conduct ourselves? Must we stoop to their level?



That's a joke right?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Mon Feb 09, 2009 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
Quote:
Why should that have any bearing on how we conduct ourselves? Must we stoop to their level?



That's a joke right?

No, it's not. I'm not talking about our conduct on the battlefield; I'm talking about how we conduct our justice system. How Al Qaeda or the Taliban conduct their systems of justice, whatever they may be, should have no bearing on how we conduct ours unless you think they are models worth emulating in all cases. I'm going to assume that you think the way said organizations conduct their business is deplorable, so I don't see why the way they do things should have any bearing on how we do things.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Willton wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
Quote:
Why should that have any bearing on how we conduct ourselves? Must we stoop to their level?



That's a joke right?

No, it's not. I'm not talking about our conduct on the battlefield; I'm talking about how we conduct our justice system. How Al Qaeda or the Taliban conduct their systems of justice, whatever they may be, should have no bearing on how we conduct ours unless you think they are models worth emulating in all cases. I'm going to assume that you think the way said organizations conduct their business is deplorable, so I don't see why the way they do things should have any bearing on how we do things.



What makes the law relevant Wilton?

What makes the law relevant is that fact that people believe it will deliver justice. But people like you aren't interested in justice. You merely want to cross the t's and dot the i's. It's ok that the child killer goes free as long as the law was followed to the letter.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
Willton wrote:
No, it's not. I'm not talking about our conduct on the battlefield; I'm talking about how we conduct our justice system. How Al Qaeda or the Taliban conduct their systems of justice, whatever they may be, should have no bearing on how we conduct ours unless you think they are models worth emulating in all cases. I'm going to assume that you think the way said organizations conduct their business is deplorable, so I don't see why the way they do things should have any bearing on how we do things.



What makes the law relevant Wilton?

What makes the law relevant is that fact that people believe it will deliver justice. But people like you aren't interested in justice. You merely want to cross the t's and dot the i's. It's ok that the child killer goes free as long as the law was followed to the letter.

You just love to make straw men, don't you? What you just said has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said. You're making nonsense points that are totally unresponsive to the topic at hand.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Willton wrote:
Jeremy wrote:
Willton wrote:
No, it's not. I'm not talking about our conduct on the battlefield; I'm talking about how we conduct our justice system. How Al Qaeda or the Taliban conduct their systems of justice, whatever they may be, should have no bearing on how we conduct ours unless you think they are models worth emulating in all cases. I'm going to assume that you think the way said organizations conduct their business is deplorable, so I don't see why the way they do things should have any bearing on how we do things.



What makes the law relevant Wilton?

What makes the law relevant is that fact that people believe it will deliver justice. But people like you aren't interested in justice. You merely want to cross the t's and dot the i's. It's ok that the child killer goes free as long as the law was followed to the letter.

You just love to make straw men, don't you? What you just said has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said. You're making nonsense points that are totally unresponsive to the topic at hand.



God save me from public school educations.

A straw man argument assumes facts not in evidence. Through your interactions with various people on this board, you've revealved quite a bit about yourself that you're probably not even aware of.

You sit there on your computer and quote law at people like me and ZM without understanding the underlying principles of law. Law only remains relevant in a society as long as everyone agrees to the fundementals of it. In other words, law can't exist in a vaccum. It's a living and breathing thing that requires people's continued belief in it to remain relevant. When you extrapolate law to warfare, you assume that all participants are going to abide by the basics of the law. When one side ignores the rules, or laws, of warfare they render the law irrelevant.

As a lawyer, I don't expect you to understand any of this. You live in a world dominated by theory. As someone who's never worn the uniform of your country, I really don't expect you to understand this. You're contributing to the downfall of your own society by your slavish devotion to an abstarct theory.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:45 pm
Posts: 1296
Location: Bowie, Md
Very well said Jeremy, as a fellow serviceman, I couldn't agree more. Many people in this country don't understand that its a priviledge to serve in the military. Lawmakers at home spend countless hours figuring out how to take more and more weapons out of the hands of soldiers, further causing them danger. And all-the-while vilifying the conservatives and Bush for the dead soldiers that is the cost of this war.

You seem like a highly intelligent guy Wilton, far more intelligent than me, but what I see from you is what appears to be a partyline thought process. There must be some Liberal "playbook" that everyone follows, you know, take some fantasy moral highroad(unless it pertains to your success), blame the Republicans, Blame Bush, and strive for world peace that hasn't been achieved at any time throughout the entire life of this planet.

You did get upset that I questioned your concern for those that perished in 9/11, so with that, I have hopes for you. We need things like torture and tossing a KNOWN terrorist in a dark dank cell for a year or so to help ward off future attacks. I'm sorry my friend, your courts, and misplaced ethics are not concerning them whatsoever. Fear is the name of this game, now without GITMO, without waterboarding, and with Obama in office, and with defense lawyers with your skill, what stops them from doing 9/11 all over again?

Sure Ben Franklin said that "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." But he never met Osama Bin Laden. He had never met such an adversary.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:40 pm 
Online
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
Maybe both the lawyers and the military here can explain why we simply cannot provide for trial under the military code of justice.

Get 'em a couple of JAGS for defense. They would have a robust defense and fair trial, but not under a civil code that simply is not equipped to handle enemy combatants.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
Maybe both the lawyers and the military here can explain why we simply cannot provide for trial under the military code of justice.

ZM

There is no reason why enemy combatants cannot be tried by a proceeding that is in conformity with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. The Supreme Court has said as much in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Why the last administration insisted that they could not be given such trials is beyond me.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
God save me from public school educations.

A straw man argument assumes facts not in evidence. Through your interactions with various people on this board, you've revealved quite a bit about yourself that you're probably not even aware of.

No, that's petitio principii, or assuming a major premise. A straw man argument is attacking a misrepresentation of an opponent's position that is easier to refute then the opponent's actual position. Look it up.

Jeremy wrote:
You sit there on your computer and quote law at people like me and ZM without understanding the underlying principles of law. Law only remains relevant in a society as long as everyone agrees to the fundementals of it. In other words, law can't exist in a vaccum. It's a living and breathing thing that requires people's continued belief in it to remain relevant. When you extrapolate law to warfare, you assume that all participants are going to abide by the basics of the law. When one side ignores the rules, or laws, of warfare they render the law irrelevant.

When a person is captured and in your custody, there is no more warfare going on. The detainee has essentially laid down his arms and surrendered to the custody of the other side. He has therefore submitted to your rule of law, thereby still giving the law substance.

If your position were true, then the law would have no effect even in our country. You would be sanctioning the abandonment of law when anyone breaks it, including domestic criminals like thieves and murderers: if you suspect someone of murdering another, your solution is to do away with the trial and do what you please with them. No trial, no procedure; no ability to determine the truth or a fair punishment. If your view was the prevailing view, then there'd be no use for criminal law or procedure and no point in prosecuting people for war crimes. Such a position is untenable, both domestically and internationally.

Jeremy wrote:
As a lawyer, I don't expect you to understand any of this. You live in a world dominated by theory. As someone who's never worn the uniform of your country, I really don't expect you to understand this. You're contributing to the downfall of your own society by your slavish devotion to an abstarct theory.

Hiding behind your military uniform does not make your position any more credible. While I commend you for your service, your service does not make you an authority on what to do off the battlefield. By holding the position that we should abandon the law when the other side breaks it would promote anarchy across the world.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Concerning the USS Cole
PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:54 pm 
Online
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4235
Location: Zelienople, PA
You do realize Wilton, that the practical outcome of the implemenation of these policies will be seen by the military in the field as an abandonment of their efforts. Especially when known terrorist are set free.

I fear the practical result will be a substantial reduction in prisoners delivered to prison for trial

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits